informed that the P. for I. has received and con-
sidered his pethain but that
he doe
craf
seeder
have been brought to ligent
the opening of his case
that
any
Alw
fasts
that wit
beccacitate the
M
aud
that there fore
вит
ases
fering with
من
vasen for intern
The Lovs. derisin.
C. 9.6. 1920.
Mr. Bushe
When you have time
I know that you
are hard pressed just now would you kindly look
at these papers and give us your opinion as to
whether the recent oonviction of Chan Pul is a
fait nouveau which calls for a re-opening of
this old decision. You will see from the last
encl. that the H. of C. is held up in terrorem.
A.E.C.
15.5.20
брой
You asked me to look at this. In my opin the Xcent conviction of than Per has no beavy on the action taken in 1910 + does not justify a x.opening
? add to the suggested reply that his having bene called on to pay $750 km not regarded as Loony cast a serous shur of Capt. I.'s character & honous. (v. pora 12 flatter, It was due to the for's opinion that Caft. I. should have seen that the orders gesin by heir love
by him love being carried out. This openson of the for: was conveyed in a the for: to which Capt. I. replied
minute of
on than to. (v. Para g of letter).
Ar. 24/11/20
Mr. Collins.
420
I their that laks Taylor was a lible hardly treated, bus conni say
But think that the Conviction of Chau Pui is a fail Nouveau" which undermiues the action gueriously taken, & Which was based on lack of supervision.
Ithink we might say that so, adding that it's dow not Consider that he used legard the tie cumstances as having Cast any slue on his character, te action Carienteen due merch to the fact that the then for did not towarder thathis Suter vision this outordinates had been Sufficiently effective to beatle him to believe Call boylor of the whole of his legal Liabilibin the matter?
28/11).
(See detatch on 3/503)
Mr. Grindle
Abb. 28/6/20
I agree. And let Capt. Taylour have a
copy of our desp. if he asks about the matter on
his reaching this country.
A.5.0. 29.5
G.G.29.6.
at du
ETL